September 24, 2009 5:22 pm

The fundamental dilemma of health care reform isn’t whether to adopt a public plan or extend coverage to the uninsured – important as those discussions are.

The core problem is how to stop squandering so much money on needless treatment that doesn’t help patients. If the dollars followed results instead of procedures and visits, there’d be better results and fewer wasted – and costly – procedures and visits.

If the waste were pared out of the system, it would be far easier to cover the uninsured, run a cost-effective public plan, help companies maintain coverage for their employees, offer affordable premiums to individuals, etc., etc. It all hinges on costs.

U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington gets this. This week, she succeeded in amending a key reform care bill in a way that would reward quality of care instead of quantity of care.

The amendment affects only Medicare, but that’s a very big “only.” Medicare lies at the heart of the heart of the problem. It has always operated on a fee-for-service basis: The doctor or hospital submits the bill, Medicare writes the check. More bills, more checks.

Medicare is going broke on this model. Historically, the program has fueled the hyperinflation that has made health insurance such a scarce commodity in this country.

There’s a further perversion in the way it operates. Because its reimbursements are based on historic expenses in different states, states with a tradition of cost-effective care see smaller reimbursements than states with a tradition of excessive spending. As a result, Washington doctors and hospitals get penalized for their virtue; high-expense states like Florida get rewarded for their vice.

Cantwell’s amendment would direct the Health and Human Services Department to reward quality instead of quantity by emphasizing integrated, coordinated, patient-focused treatment. There are many ways to hold down medical costs; this is an important one.

Coordinated treatment is delivered in a health care organization that knits together primary care doctors with specialists. For the patient, it’s one-stop shopping. Every doctor knows what the other doctors are doing. Patients are not constantly asked the same questions. Medicare records are not duplicated. Prescriptions don’t conflict.

Examples include Washington’s Group Health and The Everett Clinic, Minnesota’s Health Partners and Mayo Clinic, The Cleveland Clinic of Ohio. None of these organizations is perfect, but as a group they tend to perform well while avoiding needless expense.

Pushing Medicare in this direction – and away from fee-for-service – is an especially promising way to rein in the waste that has helped make universal health coverage such a devilish problem in the United States.

The excitement around native advertising has spawned a proliferation of “native advertising platforms.” The market is ready to move past the hype and choose the best technology. Here are five key technology requirements to focus on when choosing a native advertising platform, whether you’re building a native ad network,

Despite all the hype about native advertising, many publishers are still unclear about what native advertising is and why they should run native ads on their sites. Publishers need to understand the value of native advertising for their publications and for their readers. Here is a primer on native advertising

The display advertising value chain is dominated by ad exchanges and programmatic buying. But who will control the emerging market for native advertising, which depends on human factors to drive real value and scale? Here are the four critical elements of the native advertising value chain, how they create value,

Premium pricing for premium value has made native advertising the great hope for publishers desperate to escape the death spiral of plunging CPM prices for display advertising. For newspapers, premium pricing for premium value is why print advertising cash flow is still keeping their businesses afloat. Native advertising could be

When a term is as hot and hyped as “native advertising”, it’s inevitable that everyone will want to appropriate it to describe everything they are doing. Which means the term will be widely misappropriated. While it’s still open for debate exactly what native advertising is, it’s useful

Scott Karp

Feeds

I agree, the core problem is how to stop squandering so much money on needless treatments that don’t help patients; and yes there are many ways to hold down medical costs and this is one way that I don’t see being considered.
Rather than spending so much money on needless treatments that don’t work, why not include all forms of natural and alternative medicine. For example, the healing powers of natural/organic supplements can prevent disease and provide wellness. This can play an important role in reducing health care cost as this would assist in keeping people well, rather than sick.
The billion+ dollar drug companies, “Big pharma” would like to see more restrictions placed on natural medicine and natural products as they can’t patent them. The only way they can patent natural products is to chemically alter them. I have heard that they are trying to do just that which if they succeed it would mean we could only get vitamin “c”, etc. by prescription only. “Big pharma” knows natural medicine can improve ones quality of health and wellness and therefore have fought against this form of health care for years.
Let’s face it with less sick people in the world it means less profit for “Big pharma” and less money given to those in the government that they fund, like the FDA, AMA and many politicians

*

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.